Senate health overhaul cost put at $1.6 trillion

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Full steam ahead for UHC :thumbsup:

Are you trolling or can you not read?


"On Monday, the budget office said the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee version would cost $1 trillion over ten years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsured."


1/3 of currently uninsured is extremely far from UHC. UHC would cover every citizen, if they have insurance currently or not.

It's a little bit at a time. That's how us liberals do things. Then the frog doesn't even notice anything's up until the waters boiling!

 

[miniMUNCH]

The only problem is that our health system is not ready for this change this fast.

We are making a lot of assumptions about a lot of things in pushing ahead with all these high cost social programs...

There is a government that did the same things for many many years... it's called California.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
:thumbsup: for UHC. It is time we as a nation got out of the dark ages on healthcare. A parallel public/private system is the way to go.

Yeah its time we got away from the world-class healthcare system we have now. :thumbsup: Three cheers for rationed care and a government employee deciding if your treatment is worth having!

Yeah its time we got away from the world-class, yet selectively available healthcare system we have now. Three cheers for rationed care and an insurance company employee deciding if your treatment is worth having!

Two can play that game. This is why I support a parallel system to where you can still get more if you are willing to pay up. The current system will fail more and more people until it collapses, or the rest of us get a public option set in place.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Patranus
so what, that 1.6 trillion dollars reduces the number of uninsured from 52 million to 36 million.
1.6 trillion dollars for 16 million people over 10 years.

What is that? A cool $100,000 per person? Sounds like a great plan.

Coming from the same guy who said unemployment would reach 8% if we don't pass the 800 billion dollar stimulus package...
Where are we sitting? 10%?

You think it'd be the same or less if they hadn't of passed that stimulus package?

Hard to say, but I've recently heard that only 5% of the stimulus money has even been expended/sent out.

If that number is accurate, I don't think it could have had much, if any, effect on jobs.

(Probably should be a seperate topic, but if that stim money is gonna dribble out this slow - as everyone expected BTW - I would hope Congress revisit ti and maybe cancel some future payments. IMO< it was stupid to rush to setup stim payments for 3, 4 and 5 years out)

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Patranus
so what, that 1.6 trillion dollars reduces the number of uninsured from 52 million to 36 million.
1.6 trillion dollars for 16 million people over 10 years.

What is that? A cool $100,000 per person? Sounds like a great plan.

Coming from the same guy who said unemployment would reach 8% if we don't pass the 800 billion dollar stimulus package...
Where are we sitting? 10%?

That's pretty pathetic. My insurance is one of those evil "gold-plated" union plans and it's still a quarter of the cost.

And people need to stop referring to this as UHC.

Looks like about $10K a year, I'm surprised your 'gold-plated' plan is only 25% of that ($2,500). I thought those were more expensive than that?

I'd like to know what Medicare/Medicaid works out to be on a per-person basis. If it's cheaper just use that.

The math also indicates to get everyone covered under this UHI (it's not UHC) will cost about $5 trillion :Q

Fern

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
:thumbsup: for UHC. It is time we as a nation got out of the dark ages on healthcare. A parallel public/private system is the way to go.

Yeah its time we got away from the world-class healthcare system we have now. :thumbsup: Three cheers for rationed care and a government employee deciding if your treatment is worth having!

Yeah its time we got away from the world-class, yet selectively available healthcare system we have now. Three cheers for rationed care and an insurance company employee deciding if your treatment is worth having!

Two can play that game. This is why I support a parallel system to where you can still get more if you are willing to pay up. The current system will fail more and more people until it collapses, or the rest of us get a public option set in place.

What does this mean exactly? I pay more in premiums than I do now to keep the insurance I currently have at work? I also pay more in taxes to help uninsured people get insured? I'm all for poor people getting insurance but the middle class better not be the group paying for it.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

My main criticism is that if it goes tits up and doesn't work or gets out of control, more money will just be pumped into it, rather than stop or make major changes.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Full steam ahead for UHC :thumbsup:

Are you trolling or can you not read?


"On Monday, the budget office said the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee version would cost $1 trillion over ten years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsured."


1/3 of currently uninsured is extremely far from UHC. UHC would cover every citizen, if they have insurance currently or not.

It's a little bit at a time. That's how us liberals do things. Then the frog doesn't even notice anything's up until the waters boiling!

Or in non-fantasy land, the frog is dead when the temperature reaches a point where the frog can no longer sustain life, well before boiling.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fern

The math also indicates to get everyone covered under this UMI (it's not UHC) will cost about $5 trillion :Q

Fern

fixed

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern

The math also indicates to get everyone covered under this UMI (it's not UHC) will cost about $5 trillion :Q

Fern

fixed

What got fixed?

UHI = universal health insurance

I suppose UMI is universal medical insurance?

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

Rule #1: Any one that spells 'more' like 'moar' should not be allowed to start threads on health care.

 

[theeedude]

Need to cover everyone. There is no need for this incrementalism with the GOP neutered.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fern
What got fixed?

UHI = universal health insurance

I suppose UMI is universal medical insurance?

Fern

yup. health requires more than just medical solutions, but all that is covered will be medicine and maybe some things parading as medicine. health requires actually taking care of yourself. further, the greatest contributions to health haven't been medical (being proper plumbing).

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Need to cover everyone. There is no need for this incrementalism with the GOP neutered.

That's great and all but who pays for it? Do we increase taxes somewhere or cut back somewhere else?

 

[DonaldC]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
My main criticism is that if it goes tits up and doesn't work or gets out of control, more money will just be pumped into it, rather than stop or make major changes.

Have no doubt that it will become the biggest money hole the government ever dreamed up.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
My main criticism is that if it goes tits up and doesn't work or gets out of control, more money will just be pumped into it, rather than stop or make major changes.

This sounds a lot like what we have been doing for decades regarding healthcare. 🙁

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Need to cover everyone. There is no need for this incrementalism with the GOP neutered.

Agreed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp
Need to cover everyone. There is no need for this incrementalism with the GOP neutered.

Agreed.

Yep, if you're going to screw the current generations and multiple future generations - you might as well screw them good...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp
Need to cover everyone. There is no need for this incrementalism with the GOP neutered.

Agreed.

Yep, if you're going to screw the current generations and multiple future generations - you might as well screw them good...

Why do you hate America?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp
Need to cover everyone. There is no need for this incrementalism with the GOP neutered.

Agreed.

Yep, if you're going to screw the current generations and multiple future generations - you might as well screw them good...

Why do you hate America?

The left is indistinguishable from the right.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Patranus
so what, that 1.6 trillion dollars reduces the number of uninsured from 52 million to 36 million.
1.6 trillion dollars for 16 million people over 10 years.

What is that? A cool $100,000 per person? Sounds like a great plan.

Coming from the same guy who said unemployment would reach 8% if we don't pass the 800 billion dollar stimulus package...
Where are we sitting? 10%?

You think it'd be the same or less if they hadn't of passed that stimulus package?

Well considering
http://pajamasmedia.com/richar...-unemployment-may2.gif

I would say that it was a complete failure and Obama should not be given a single cent for the rest of the year. His "playing around coin" is tapped out.

Was that graph ever actually used by the administration when pushing anything? I presume Bush, given when the stimulus went through...?

If this turns out to cost only 160 billion dollars a year in 10 years I will put my testicles in a vice while setting them on fire and giving Harvey the chance to crank as hard as he would like.

I think my nuts are safe.

Of course they are. $160B/year nobody believes that, do they?

Interesting number. I just found that in Canada according to wikipedia Health care spending in Canada is projected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007 Now, the pretenders say that people will stay on private who have it now, so we'll only see an increase in public, but even if that was the case (it's not), Canada's population is maybe 35M, much less than in the US without insurance. Plus, I bet it would cost more in the US for the same thing anyway.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Was that graph ever actually used by the administration when pushing anything? I presume Bush, given when the stimulus went through...?

Might want to check your facts.
Bush was TARP and not Obama is taking credit for interest on TARP repayments.
Obama was 100% stimulus.

Yes, that graph was PRODUCED by the Obama administration. The additional data points of actual unemployment were imposed on the graph produced by the Obama administration. Funny how whitehouse.gov took the image off their site.

 

[Hacp]

Take what we pay for medicare and medicaid. Now double that. That'll be the real cost of the program.

 

[jpeyton]

We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

 

[alphatarget1]

I was talking to a grad student from NZ about their healthcare system. Apparently everyone is on UHC, but you can still buy health insurance so you'll be top of the list when it comes to surgeries and what not. Could that work in the US?